DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/19/2023 and 08/28/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Status of the Claims In the claim dated 06/19/2023, claims 1-19 are pending. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claim 1 recites the limitation s : “a pulse-precise deflector unit configured to deflect the laser beam in at least one direction perpendicular to a beam propagation direction, a transformation optics arrangement having at least two components arranged downstream of the pulse-precise deflector unit, wherein the transformation optics arrangement is configured to transform a spatial deflection and/or an angular deflection of the laser beam into the angular deflection and/or the spatial deflection, and/or transform the spatial deflection and the angular deflection inversely, by using a space-to-angle transformation and/or an angle-to-space transformation, and a processing optical unit arranged downstream of the transformation optics arrangement and configured to guide the laser beam into an image-side focal plane of the processing optical unit” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses generic placeholders “unit” and “arrangement” that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “ pulse-precise deflector unit ” , Applicant’s Specification, lines – par. 0022-0023 recite “ A pulse-precise deflector unit here comprises one or more pulse-precise deflectors… A deflector can be, for example, a microelectronic mechanical element or an electro-optical deflector or an acousto-optic deflector”. With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “transformation optics arrangement ” , Applicant’s Specification, lines – par.0064 recites : “ he transformation optics arrangement can be a Fourier optics arrangement”. With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “processing optical unit ” , Applicant’s Specification, lines – par.0145 recites: “The processing optical unit 9 can be, for example, a telescope or form a telescope with the final component in the transformation optics arrangement and thus in particular comprise a plurality of lenses or mirrors”. Claim 6 recites the limitation: “ a polarization rotation device configured to rotate a polarization of the laser beam ” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “polarization rotation device” , Applicant’s Specification, lines – par.0052 recites: “The polarization rotation device can be, in the simplest case, for example a lambda/2 plate”. Claim 9 recites the limitation: “the beam-shaping element is configured to impose upon the laser beam an intensity distribution and/or phase distribution and/or polarization distribution” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “ beam-shaping element”, Applicant’s Specification, lines – par.00 73 recites “he beam-shaping element can be in the form of a diffractive optical element (DOE), a free-form surface or an axicon or a micro-axicon, or may contain a combination of a plurality of these components or functionalities.” Claim 10 recites the limitation: “the beam splitting unit is configured to adapt an angle offset of the pulse-precise deflector unit” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “ beam splitting unit ”, Applicant’s Specification, lines – par.0075 recites “ a beam splitting unit is provided, preferably a diffractive beam splitting unit”. Claim 11 recites the limitation: “the beam deflection unit is configured to deflect the laser beam” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “ beam deflection unit ”, Applicant’s Specification, lines – par.0077 recites “Preferably, a beam deflection unit, preferably a galvanometer scanner”. Claim 15 recites the limitation: “a control device for controlling the pulse-precise deflector unit” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “ control device ”, Applicant’s Specification, lines – par.00 97 recites “ a corresponding control apparatus is therefore based on an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) with fast linked memories, wherein processing parameters such as beam geometry, beam profile and beam deflection are able to be stored for a specific processing operation or process”. Claim 17 recites the limitation: “a feed apparatus configured to pick up a material to be processed…” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “ feed apparatus ”, Applicant’s Specification, lines – par.0111 recites “, the feed apparatus can therefore also be an XY stage or an XYZ stage.” If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19, lines 4-5, “for s controlling clock” should be ““for controlling clock”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Clai ms 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger ( US 20170242232 A1 ) in view of Lin (US 20060133222 A1) Regarding claim 1, Leger discloses An apparatus (14, see fig.1) for influencing a laser beam ( light from 18 ) from an ultrashort pulse laser (18, see fig.1 and para.0066: “the laser unit 18 …usually with ultrashort pulse durations”), the apparatus (14, see fig.1) comprising: a pulse-precise deflector unit (combo deflectors 22 and 24, see fig.1 and para.0068: “The first acousto -optical deflector 22 is adapted to deflect an input beam in the first transverse direction X” and para.0075: “The second acousto -optical deflector 24 is adapted to deflect the first deflected beam in the second transverse direction Y to obtain a second deflected beam”) configured to deflect the laser beam ( light from 18, see fig.1 ) in at least one direction ( X or Y direction direction , see para.0068 ) perpendicular to a beam propagation direction ( Z direction, see figs.1-3 and para.0132: “ an incident pulse propagating along the longitudinal direction Z and interacting with the first acousto -optical deflector 22” ), a transformation optics arrangement (combo 28 and 30, see fig.1 and para.0091: “The second optical system 28 is, for instance, a 4 f relay”. See evidence on the website Deciphering 4f Optical Systems: A Journey into Fourier Optics - Optics for Hire : “ 4F optical system is a system architecture that uses Fourier Optics ”, wherein Fourier Optics use Fourier transforms , see para.0115: “… the Fourier transform of the spatial modulation W 5 of the fifth laser pulse P 5” ) having at least two components ( 28 and 30 ) arranged downstream of the pulse-precise deflector unit ( combo deflectors 22 and 24, see fig.1 ), and a processing optical unit (32, see fig.1 ) arranged downstream of the transformation optics arrangement (combo 28 and 30) and configured to guide the laser beam ( light from 18, see fig.1 ) into an image-side focal plane (12, see fig.1) of the processing optical unit (32, see fig.1). Leger discloses the transformation optics arrangement (28,30) comprises 4F optical system using Fourier transform (see para.0115), but Leger does not expressly disclose the transformation optics arrangement is configured to transform a spatial deflection and/or an angular deflection of the laser beam into the angular deflection and/or the spatial deflection, and/or transform the spatial deflection and the angular deflection inversely, by using a space-to-angle transformation and/or an angle-to-space transformation. However, Lee discloses a lithography method utilizing a designed coherent plate in conjunction with a matching diffraction plate to form patterns having a superior contrast in a photoresist layer, comprising: the transformation optics arrangement ( 14, see fig.1 ) is configured to transform a spatial deflection of the laser beam into the angular deflection by using a space-to-angle transformation (see para.0006: “ after light passing through the lens, the original function of space variables g( x,y,z ) is transformed to a function of angular spatial frequencies G( f.sub.x,f.sub.y,f.sub.z ) by a Fourier transformation (G(f.sub.x,f.sub.y,f.sub.z)=F{g(x,y,z)}.”). Thus, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transformation optics arrangement of Leger to be “ configured to transform a spatial deflection of the laser beam into the angular deflection by using a space-to- angle transformation ” as taught by Lee . Th is transformation not only improves measurement accuracy but also enhances the efficiency and flexibility of laser beam analysis. Regarding claim 2, Leger further discloses the pulse-precise deflector unit ( combo deflectors 22 and 24) comprises a first pulse-precise deflector ( 22, see fig.1), wherein the laser beam ( laser beam from 18) is coupled into an input ( 362, see fig.2 ) of the first pulse-precise deflector ( 22), and the first pulse-precise deflector ( 22) is configured to deflect the laser beam in a first direction ( direction X ) perpendicular to the beam propagation direction ( direction Z, see para.0132: “ incident pulse propagating along the longitudinal direction Z “ and para.0147: “the rays coming out of the first acousto -optical deflector 22 are perpendicular to the wavefront”), thereby imposing upon the laser beam a first angle offset ( XOZ, see fig.2 and para.0147). Regarding claim 3, Leger further discloses the pulse-precise deflector unit ( combo deflectors 22 and 24) comprises a second pulse-precise deflector (24, see fig.1-2), wherein, after the laser beam ( laser beam from 18) has traveled through the first pulse-precise deflector ( (22, see fig.1-2) , the laser beam is coupled into an input of the second pulse-precise deflector (422, see fig.2) with the first angle offset ( XOZ, see fig.2 and para.0147) , and the second pulse-precise deflector (24) is configured to deflect the laser beam in a second direction (Y direction, see para.0075) perpendicular to the beam propagation direction and the first direction (direction X, see para.0077: “Preferably, as can be seen on FIGS. 1 to 3, the angle α is equal to 90°”), thereby imposing upon the laser beam a second angle offset ( angle α, see fig.2 and para.0077) in addition to the first angle offset ( XOZ, see fig.2 and para.0147). Regarding claim 4, Leger further discloses the first pulse-precise deflector (22) and the second pulse-precise deflector (24) are acousto-optic deflectors (see para.0060: “ first acousto -optical deflector 22, a second acousto -optical deflector 24”). Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger in view of Lin as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Hayamizu (US 5741580 A) Regarding claim 5, Leger further discloses at least one of the first acousto-optic deflector and the second acousto-optic deflector ( 22 and 24 ) comprises a phased array transducer (38 and 44, see fig.2 and para.0085, 0099) . Leger does not expressly disclose the phased array transducer has a diffraction efficiency of over 75% over an exit region of at least 0.05°. Hayamizu discloses a crystalline thin film which is used as a transparent electrode layer and used for an acoustooptic deflection element, comprising: the transducer has a diffraction efficiency of over 75% over an exit region of at least 0.05 (See col.12, lines 38-44: “ether the ZnO thin film 32 was formed by the laser ablation method or formed by the sputtering method, the angle of deflection was approximately 1. 2.degree.. In a case in which the ZnO thin film 32 was formed by the sputtering method, when a high-frequency power of 4.4 W was applied to the interdigital transducer electrode 33, the efficiency of diffraction was 90%”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the phased array transducer of Leger in view of Lin to have “ a diffraction efficiency of over 75% over an exit region of at least 0.05° ” as taught by Hayamizu . Doing so allows more energy to be obtained from diffracted light which can lead to better overall system performance. Claim s 9 -10 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Gross (US20030042230A1) Regarding claim 9, the modification discloses the claimed as set forth, except a beam-shaping element arranged in a corresponding deflector plane or in a transformation plane or in a corresponding transformation plane, wherein the beam-shaping element is configured to impose upon the laser beam an intensity distribution and/or phase distribution and/or polarization distribution. Gross discloses multiple laser beam positioning and energy deliver systems, comprising: a beam-shaping element ( beam shaping element, see para.0164) arranged in a corresponding deflector plane ( plane of A0D 130, see fig.2), wherein the beam-shaping element ( beam shaping element, see para.0164) ) is configured to impose upon the laser beam ( 122, see fig.2) an intensity distribution (See fig.8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Leger in view of Lin to incorporate “a beam-shaping element arranged in a corresponding deflector plane or in a transformation plane or in a corresponding transformation plane, wherein the beam-shaping element is configured to impose upon the laser beam an intensity distribution and/or phase distribution and/or polarization distribution” as taught by Gross. Doing so ensured the energy from the laser is distributed uniformly. Regarding claim 10 , the modification discloses the claimed as set forth, except a beam splitting unit arranged in a corresponding pulse-precise deflector plane or in a transformation plane or in a corresponding transformation plane, wherein the beam splitting unit is configured to adapt an angle offset of the pulse-precise deflector unit. Gross discloses multiple laser beam positioning and energy deliver systems, comprising: a beam splitting unit (30, see fig.1 ) arranged in a corresponding pulse-precise deflector plane (plane containing 30, see fig.1), wherein the beam splitting unit (30) is configured to adapt an angle offset of the pulse-precise deflector unit ( see para.0090: “the different frequencies in acoustic wave 38 cause each beam segment 50 to be deflected at a selectable angle θ n to impinge on a selected mapped section 60 of mapping assembly 58”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Leger in view of Lin to incorporate “ a beam splitting unit arranged in a corresponding pulse-precise deflector plane or in a transformation plane or in a corresponding transformation plane, wherein the beam splitting unit is configured to adapt an angle offset of the pulse-precise deflector unit” as taught by Gross. Doing so allows foe efficient distribution of light across multiple outputs, which is desirable for certain applications. Regarding claim 14 , the modification discloses the claimed as set forth, except a rasterized beam-shaping element arranged in a corresponding processing plane, the rasterized beam-shaping element comprising a plurality of raster elements, wherein each raster element is an individual beam-shaping partial element. Gross discloses a system for delivering energy to a substrate including a dynamically directable source of radiant energy providing a plurality of beams of radiation, comprising: a rasterized beam-shaping element ( 54, see fig.1 A ) arranged in a corresponding processing plane ( plane containing 54, see fig.1A) , the rasterized beam-shaping element comprising a plurality of raster elements (54, see fig.1A ), wherein each raster element is an individual beam-shaping partial element (“independently tiltable beam steering reflector elements 54”, see para.0076). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Leger in view of Lin to incorporate “ a rasterized beam-shaping element arranged in a corresponding processing plane, the rasterized beam-shaping element comprising a plurality of raster elements, wherein each raster element is an individual beam-shaping partial element” as taught by Gross. Doing so allows “the beam segment ultimately impinges on substrate at a desired location” (see para.0112 of Gross). Regarding claim 15 , the modification discloses the claimed as set forth, except a control device for controlling the pulse-precise deflector unit, wherein the control device is configured to bring about deflection of the laser beam in such a way that each pulse of the laser beam is incident on a different raster element of the rasterized beam-shaping element, or the laser beam is directed to a specific raster element, or the laser beam sweeps over the plurality of raster elements, or a plurality of partial laser beams are guided in a targeted manner to the plurality of raster elements. Gross further discloses a control device (44) for controlling the pulse-precise deflector unit (30, see fig.1A ), wherein the control device (30, see fig.1A) is configured to bring about deflection of the laser beam (50) in such a way that each pulse of the laser beam (50 ) is incident on a different raster element (54) of the rasterized beam-shaping element (54, see fig.1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Leger in view of Lin to incorporate “ a control device for controlling the pulse-precise deflector unit, wherein the control device is configured to bring about deflection of the laser beam in such a way that each pulse of the laser beam is incident on a different raster element of the rasterized beam-shaping element” as taught by Gross. Doing so allows “the beam segment ultimately impinges on substrate at a desired location” (see para.0112 of Gross). Regarding claim 16 , the modification discloses the claimed as set forth, except the processing optical unit together with a second element of the transformation optics arrangement is designed as a telescope having a reducing effect with a large numerical aperture and a short focal length, and/or is embodied as a transmissive or reflective optical unit. Gross discloses a system for delivering energy to a substrate including a dynamically directable source of radiant energy providing a plurality of beams of radiation, comprising: the processing optical unit ( 62, see fig.1A) together with a second element ( 63, see fig.1A) of the transformation optics arrangement (combo 63-64) is embodied as a transmissive optical unit (see fig.1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Leger in view of Lin so as “ the processing optical unit together with a second element of the transformation optics arrangement is embodied as a transmissive or reflective optical unit” as taught by Gross. Doing so allows the beam segments to propagate along optical axes extending in mutually different directions (see para.0084 of Gross). Claim s 11 , 13 and 17- 19 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Maltsev (US20120241427A1) Regarding claim 11 , the modification discloses the claimed as set forth, except a beam deflection unit arranged in a corresponding pulse-precise deflector plane or in a transformation plane or in a corresponding transformation plane, wherein the beam deflection unit is configured to deflect the laser beam. Maltsev discloses a method of processing material of device elements by laser interaction, comprising: a beam deflection unit ( second deflector 11 (AOBD 2 ), see fig.3A ) arranged in a corresponding pulse-precise deflector plane or in a transformation plane or in a corresponding transformation plane ( plane containing 11, see fig.3A ), wherein the beam deflection unit (11) is configured to deflect the laser beam ( see para.0062: “A second deflector 11 may deflect the laser beam along another axis”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Leger in view of Lin to incorporate “ a beam deflection unit arranged in a corresponding pulse-precise deflector plane or in a transformation plane or in a corresponding transformation plane, wherein the beam deflection unit is configured to deflect the laser beam” as taught by Maltsev . Doing so helps to focus the laser beam on different parts od the material being processed, allowing for more precise control and improved efficiency. Regarding claim 13 , the modification discloses the claimed as set forth, except a beam clean-up element arranged in a corresponding processing plane. Maltsev discloses a method of processing material of device elements by laser interaction, comprising: a beam clean-up element ( stop 9, see fig.3A ) arranged in a corresponding processing plane (plane containing stop 9, see fig.3A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Leger in view of Lin to incorporate “ a beam clean-up element arranged in a corresponding processing plane ” as taught by Maltsev . Doing so “prevents unwanted energy of the first deflector from propagating into the second deflector” (See para.0062 of Maltsev ”. Regarding claim 17 , the modification discloses the claimed as set forth, except a feed apparatus configured to pick up a material to be processed, arrange the material in an image-side focal plane of the processing optical unit, and move the material relative to the laser beam, so that the laser beam is guided over the material. Maltsev discloses a method of processing material of device elements by laser interaction, comprising: a feed apparatus (23 see fig.3A) configured to pick up a material ( substrate 22, see fig.3A) to be processed, arrange the material (22) in an image-side focal plane of the processing optical unit (20 , see fig.3A ), and move the material (22) relative to the laser beam ( see para.0080: “, the mechanical positioner moves the substrate relative to a nominal laser beam axis to provide mechanical positioning of targets in a processing trajectory”), so that the laser beam is guided over the material (see fig.3A and par.0080). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Leger in view of Lin to incorporate “ a feed apparatus configured to pick up a material to be processed, arrange the material in an image-side focal plane of the processing optical unit, and move the material relative to the laser beam, so that the laser beam is guided over the material” as taught by Maltsev . Doing so allows to “control the stage motion and position the targets with high precision along the trajectory” (See para.00 87 of Maltsev ). Regarding claim 18, Leger in view of Lin/ Maltsev further discloses the feed apparatus (23 of Maltsev , see fig.3A) is connected to a control apparatus (401 of Maltsev , se fig4) for exchanging control signals (See fig.4 and para.0064 o f Maltsev : “The system controller 401 may also provide the pulse triggers to the laser system 1, and the X and Y positioning signals to mechanical positioning system 23.”), and the control apparatus (401 of Maltsev ) is configured to adapt a position of the feed apparatus (23 of Maltsev ) in relation to control of the pulse-precise deflector unit ( See para.007 of Maltsev : “the beam path of laser pulses may move relative to the substrate during the process of irradiation in an “on-the-fly” link blowing process”). Regarding claim 1 9 , Leger in view of Lin/ Maltsev further discloses in the feed apparatus has at least one axis encoder (encoder, see para.0168 of Maltsev ), wherein the control apparatus (401 of Maltsev ) is configured to read an axis encoder position ( See para.0168 of Maltsev : “ stage position encoders may be sampled at about a 3 MHz rate or about every 350 nanoseconds to provide dense position data that is used to accurately estimate the intercept point position at a planned pulse trigger time” ), the laser is configured to specify for the control apparatus (401) a fundamental frequency ( 3 MHz ) for s controlling clock for deflecting the laser beam by the pulse-precise deflector unit (7, see fig.4 and para.0168-0169 of Maltsev ) and for reading the axis encoder position ( para.0168-0169 of Maltsev : “an accurate predicted intercept point position can be used to generate corrected deflections relative to the intercept point for each pulse and may be generated, for example, in much less than the 3.3 microsecond time period between laser pulses for a 300 kHz laser”) , wherein the control apparatus (401 of Maltsev ) is configured to calculate in real time a position error for a subsequent pulse from a current axis encoder position ( see para.0087 of Maltsev : “Position errors measured or characterized during the trajectory can be accommodated in different way” ), wherein the control apparatus is configured to correct the position error by adapting the control signal of the pulse- precise deflector unit (See para.0087 of Maltsev : “errors in either axis can be corrected with corresponding adjustments within the beam deflection field by the AOBDs”). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-8 and 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US9069227B2 discloses methods and apparatus to control acousto-optic deflectors Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3673 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761